ArticleActa obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica2025
Trends in the use of induction of labor by methods and indications: A population-based study.
Article in Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study protocol FRENCH-ARRIVE: labor induction in low-risk nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation to reduce cesarean births: a randomized trial of induction versus expectant management in France.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Trial
- Trends in risk factors associated with the increasing labor induction rate: A nationwide register study in Finland 2005-2023.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Impact of a Routine Third Trimester Ultrasound Policy on Obstetric, Neonatal and Service Delivery Outcomes in an Australian Tertiary Centre.The Australian & New Zealand journal of obstetrics & gynaecology · 2026Article
- Trends in the use of induction of labor by methods and indications: A population-based study.Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInduction of labor is a widely used obstetric intervention, with rates increasing globally. In Australia in 2022, over one-third of women gave birth following the induction of labor. Though the rate of induction has increased, changes in methods and indications for induction have not been analyzed for the state of Victoria. This study aims to analyze these trends in Victoria, Australia. MATERIAL AND
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using de-identified data from the Victorian Perinatal Data Collection (VPDC) that includes all births statewide of at least 28 completed weeks' gestation from 2012 to 2020. The study analyzed trends in the onset of labor, methods used, and indications for induction over the study period, using descriptive statistics and average annual percentage change.
resultsA total of 701 324 births occurred during the study period, of which 223 672 (31.9%) were inductions. Induction of labor rates increased significantly from 25.4% in 2012 to 37.7% in 2020, with a notable rise at 38 and 39 weeks' gestation. Significant changes were observed in induction methods-the use of combination methods, particularly balloon catheter followed by pharmacological agents, increased, while the use of a standalone method declined. The findings suggest that gestational diabetes and fetal indications were major drivers of induction in recent years.
conclusionsLabor induction practices in Victoria have changed significantly, reflecting shifts in clinical practices and changes in health profiles of pregnant women. Further research is needed to investigate the rising use of induction at early term gestation and the role of maternal preferences in driving induction in Victoria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.